Etoys has paid the price for its hubris. As reported Feb 6, 2001 on FuckedCompany, "eToys.com is laying off its remaining 293 employees, effectively winding down operations this spring." DotComScoop also reports, "Los Angeles-based toy e-tailer eToys announced today that the company has given its final 293 employees notice that April 6 will be their last day on the job. Last month the company told 700 workers that their jobs would be eliminated over an approximately 60-day period. eToys has publicly stated that the company only has enough cash to operate through March 31, and that's without assurance."

I have no sympathy for this company. Why? In 1999, Etoys gathered up their lawyers and decided to launch an assault on etoy corporation, an Internet-based art acquisition company. There's no mention of this attack on Etoys' website (barring me from gaining their perspective), but it's ALL over the internet.

The battle began when a customer's grandson tried to visit etoys.com, but typed etoy.com. He was greeted with the phrase, "get the fucking flash plugin". This customer was understandably upset, and so was Etoys. So, on September 10, 1999, Etoys sued Etoy over the domain name, etoy.com. Etoy corporation has been around since 1994, and Etoys has been around since 1996, but that didn't seem to stop them from trying. And they succeeded. On December 29, 1999, etoy.com was shut down.

Eventually, Etoys dropped the lawsuit in the face of massive public pressure. According to toywars.com, "more than 300 articles (New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Le Monde, CNN) reported the story and 250 resistance sites and net-shelters were established." After the suit was dropped, Etoy came back and sued Etoys since "they were here first", and really, Etoy had more claim to a domain dispute than Etoys ever did, since they WERE first.

Bully boy tactics work everwhere else, I'm sure the lawyers were surprised how nasty the internet can react to that sort of thing. We're all really socialists, but without the really bad things.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>

actually at etoy.com you will find I believe a group of artist and not an art acquisition company...

and now they are suing etoys.com to get their domain name....

12xu
out

Business Editors & High-Tech Writers

ZURICH, Switzerland and SAN DIEGO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jan. 25, 2001--etoy.VENTURE association aka etoy Corp., announced today it had filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking a definitive resolution to its long-running dispute with eToys Inc. (NASDAQ:ETYS) concerning rights in the "etoys" trademark.

The dispute generated considerable public attention last year when eToys Inc. filed a trademark suit against etoy Corp. in an attempt to gain control of the ETOY.COM domain which is owned and operated by the etoy Corp. eToys Inc. eventually agreed to drop the suit and pay up to $40,000 to the etoy Corp. to cover legal fees it incurred in its defense.

The new lawsuit, filed in federal court in San Diego (Case No. 01cv0136J) alleges that the "etoys" trademark registered to eToys Inc. (Reg. No. 2,191,558) is invalid and violates etoy Corp.'s rights in its "etoy" trademark (Reg. No. 2,411,648). The suit seeks the cancellation of the "etoys" trademark and seeks to prohibit eToys Inc. from infringing on the "etoy" trademark. In addition, etoy Corp. seeks an order transferring the ETOYS.COM domain name to the control of the etoy Corp. In a separate action, the etoy Corp. filed a formal opposition with the United States Patent and Trademark Office to eToys Inc.'s trademark application SN 75/611,845.

"Nobody invests to lose money," said Stamberger, a spokesperson for the etoy Corp. "We have attempted to negotiate a solution to this dispute for several months without success. We have several projects on hold until this situation is resolved. It just doesn't make business sense to spend money to promote a global brand when there is a dispute over its ownership. We owe it to all of our stakeholders to invest our resources wisely."

Chris Truax, one of the etoy Corp.'s U.S. attorneys, said that etoy Corp. has a clear legal right to use the "etoy" trademark. "The etoy Corp. was receiving international recognition and awards for its work before eToys Inc. was even founded. It is unfortunate that it has come to this. However, eToys Inc. has continued to press claims that directly infringe on the rights of the etoy Corp. By obtaining a legal ruling establishing its superior claim on the "etoy" trademark and preventing eToys Inc. from infringing on that mark, we can resolve this situation once and for all in a way that will be binding on eToys, Inc. and its successors."

etoy Corp. is an international art and entertainment group providing high-interest cultural dividends. For further information, visit the etoy Corp. Web site at http://www.etoy.com/tmlawsuit2001 or contact the etoy Corp. Press Office by phone at ++41 1 242 40 81. //etoy.TANK14/ZURICH//
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REUTERS / 25.01.2001

By Alice Ratcliffe

ZURICH, Jan 25 (Reuters) - A European Internet artists group called etoy -- with all lower-case letters -- said on Thursday it has filed a complaint in a U.S. court against online toy retailer eToys Inc. (ETYS)alleging trademark infringement.

The action, filed in the U.S. District Court of Southern California in San Diego, is the latest shot fired between etoy, an international artist's collective whose medium is the Internet, and the U.S.-based online toy retailer. etoy insists eToys Inc., which uses a capital T and ends its name in an s, has muscled in onto the collective's turf on the Internet. The retailer actually succeeded in shutting down the artist group's site during the 1999 holiday shopping season.

The complaint, a copy of which was made available to Reuters, alleges eToys, with its similar name, has used a close imitation of the registered 'etoy' mark to sell its products and advertise its services on the Internet.

"Such use is likely to cause consumer confusion, mistake or deception and infringes on etoy Corporation's rights in its registered trademark 'etoy'," said the complaint by the artists' group, whose motto is "leaving reality behind."

Etoy is also seeking to gain control of eToys' domain name.

Etoy, which may be the world's only artists' collective with a business plan, alleges that because it was around before eToys, the toy retailer should not be allowed to use a similar name that could be confused with its own.

"Etoy Corp was actively on-line and winning international awards for its work in 1996 before eToys, Inc. was even formed," the complaint alleges.

Etoy's lawyer Chris Truax, who filed the complaint on Wednesday, told Reuters in a telephone interview that "etoy is essentially staking out their territory for everyone to see." Truax, who specialises in intellectual property law, called it a "defensive move. It is not a question of revenge. It is a question of closure," Truax said.

The suit breaks a cease-fire which followed what is known in Internet lore as the "Toywar." In 1999 the retailer breifly succeeded in shutting down the etoy artists' Web site, arguing that its customers might be offended by the site, which contained what the retailer called profane language and pornography.

The artists group currently features moving cargo containers on its Web site www.etoy.com.

After the site was shut down, etoy supporters rallied to the artists' defense, threatening to block the Web retailer's site by bombarding it with bogus orders.

The battle ended in a sort of truce between the artists and the toy retailer. The latest lawsuit breaks that truce, and etoy's filing of legal opposition to eToys trademark registration with the U.S. patent office on Jan. 10.

An artist who calls himself etoy.ZAI, spokesman and "Chief Executive" of the artists' group based in Zurich, said it had "tried to deal with eToys for several months" to no avail before breaking the truce. "We have to resolve this problem once and for all," he told Reuters.

The online retailer is now retrenching its business, with its shares only a fraction of their former value. The shares closed at 5/32 on Thursday, down 1/32 or 9 percent on the day, and sharply below their high of $86 in October 1999.

A spokesman for the retailer in California said the company had no comment about the lawsuit.

NOT A QUESTION OF REVENGE, BUT ONE OF "CLOSURE"

Despite worries about similar names, in the real world it is hard to confuse etoy, whose members sport weird neon orange garb and issue directives in a neo-business jargon, with employees for a retail company.

The artist group's backers include Japanese venture capitalist Joichi Ito, who is also one of the group's "shareholders." Although the shares are not listed on any public exchange and are not backed by any tangible assets, the collective "went public" in 1998. Among its other investors were former Austrian Chancellor Viktor Klima, who bought the ceremonial first share.

Truax, asked if the filing could be considered as a serious case of corporate trademark infringment, believes it should.

"This is a 100 percent, serious lawsuit. Etoy is a real entity, and is highly respected internationally," said Truax.

"They are a real corporation. They are just providing a different product than most corporations. The people participating in it certainly seem to be getting their money's worth. They are getting their entertainment quota," he said.

Of course, I liked them as a consumer. I'm a father of two, with extended family members living all over the countryside. With eToys offering the first-ever toy registration ("wish-list") service, my boys got the kind of gifts they wanted from their grandparents -- and not those <i>bordering on child-abuse</i> homemade sweaters.

I agree with your arguments contending that eToys was a "bad" company, and now that WorldDominations 'R' Us has made its foray into the internet with a similar product offering, I really have no reason to pledge my allegiance.

Can't believe I got published, this rocks! I read a bunch of articles about what Etoy actually does, and in some it sounded like they are a group of artists, in some it sounded like they were into acquiring art. Their own website is a bastard to navigate, and I didn't find any info about what they actually do there (the menus zip around and stuff it's annoying). My final impression is that people get shares in the company somehow when they buy art through it. Either way, what Etoy does is irrelevant to the article itself. Just trying to confuse things with this post, of course :)

Some may contend that Etoys is a victim solely of the current lows in the stock market, but my contention is that the lawsuit hurt them a lot more than it helped, and contributed to their demise. Maybe they would have survived (for a while longer or, entirely) if they hadn't gone on this crusade?

<b>palutke</b> (#3):
<quote>I think etoys is getting what they deserve, karma-wise. But I don't think that it's the domain dispute that did them in . . . they just weren't making money.</quote>

I belive the problems from christmas 99 probably had a lot bigger affect on etoys then the domain thing. After KBonline has problem toys sales online where not going to pick back up for a while. And with online stores just not making huge profits they just wouldn't have enough to hold over untill they did pick back up again. <i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>

<b>Firethorn</b> (#17):
<quote>I am reminded of a similar situation: http://neirp.com. The guy created and used the cnndn.com domain, and (surprise surprise) got sued by CNNfn for 'dilution of brand equity'.</quote>
CNN reverse-hijacked gnn.de (Golem News Network) as well. :/

Etoys.com was a bad choice of a name even if Etoy.com hadn't been around first. What, "Electronic Toys"? You mean, they only sell electronic toys? Blech. Yeah, you go ahead and compete against Toys'R'Us with that. You know, when the crack pipe gets hot, that means PUT IT DOWN.

If it really was the legal thing...what is going to happen with Microsoft and the Xbox. Supposedly the XBox corporation had the name registered months before Microsoft registered the Xbox name. I feel that in Microsoft's best interest, the would rename the gaming box.

<b>asspennies</b> (#16):
<quote>I agree. The graph is interesting but largely circumstantial. The economy was the Grim Reaper here.</quote>

The graph acctauly proves the misshap in shiping. In november when online toys sales would have been highest (to insure a christmas delivery) every thing was going well. As december went on and the stories started hitting the news that stuff would not be shiping on time the price drops. To be frank any one that belives the not widly reported domain dispute, which was not widly publisied in traditional news outlets, had the bigger affect versus widly publisied reports of orders not making it in time for christmas is a moron.

Knotice the large dip in stock price between about the 21st and 25th. Then an increse in the normal post christmas buy what the kids really wanted as a discount price time, then another slide as reports of poor online return polcies kicked in. <i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>

If it really was the legal thing...what is going to happen with Microsoft and the Xbox. Supposedly the XBox corporation had the name registered months before Microsoft registered the Xbox name. I feel that in Microsoft's best interest, the would rename the gaming box.

Dave

Actually, it's in MS's best interest to throw money at the company and buy it from them.

<b>#24</b> "Therac" wrote...
<quote><quote>
If it really was the legal thing...what is going to happen with Microsoft and the Xbox. Supposedly the XBox corporation had the name registered months before Microsoft registered the Xbox name. I feel that in Microsoft's best interest, the would rename the gaming box.

Dave
</quote>

Actually, it's in MS's best interest to throw money at the company and buy it from them.</quote>

I agree, they should sweep this little(big) problem under the rug in any way necessary, I would think there too much at stake for them to consider anything else.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>

And if the other company doesn't want to sell their claim to the Xbox name... (unlikely, given the sacks of cash MS could conceivably throw at them) Microsoft should suck it up and change the name. "Xbox" ain't that great a moniker, anyway, I don't think it is worth the risk to press the issue.

Definitely worth a few sacks of money though. Damn. Can you <i>imagine</i> the thrills the guy with the claim to the name has been having ever since she/he first heard about this? Talk about frigging Christmas!<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>

I think its rather rude for someone to attempt to take someone elses domain because they feel they have a right to it. For example, the clamp down on fan sites over the Harry Potter books, multi million pound global corporates jumping on the fan sites of 10 years olds to 'protect their property'. Um, hello, fair use and the sites are good advertising for you, not harmful, goooooood. Or people domain squatting, buying up a name and trying to get money out of the 'real' person, got news for you thats extortion. Shame Gordon Sumner lost over 'sting' *grin*, go ahead promote all that saving the rain forests, then be a factotum for compaq shooting commercials from the back of a $100k+ jaguar doing 9mpg...

Of course, you could easily draw the parallel between online and reality, McDonalds Corp has had its fingers burned several times attempting to close down 'McDonalds' resteraunts around the world. One in my hometown had been around a decade before anyone had even heard of McDonalds in Ulster. They lost, badly, we laughed, loudly.

From there its an easy step to copyrighting someone elses material, but I wont go there.

[20] "Etoys.com was a bad choice of a name even if Etoy.com hadn't been around first. What, "Electronic Toys"? You mean, they only sell electronic toys? Blech."

Digging a bit deep? It's perfectly clear what EToys does/did even if the name does translate to "Electronic Toys." You could say the same thing about EBay, as well. "Electronic Bay?" Like the San Francisco Bay?

[28] "Nope, Microsoft is adamant they will not be making a mouse or keyboard available. It's a console, not a computer, they say."

For now. Who knows what the future holds for the XBox, the console with PC components.

"How are we supposed to play FPS games on it? Maybe I won't be picking up an X-box after all."

They need a keyboard and mouse option for FPS and RTS games, and I don't see why they won't build one in. Make it so it accepts standard peripherals. That makes it cheap and easy for Xbox owners to add them. Heck, they could unplug the mouse and keyboard from their computers and use them with the Xbox.

Someone who claims to be part of a focus group that's seen the Xbox has posted on Usenet that it was demo'd with a mouse and keyboard. The only reason I can see for MS claiming it won't support these is to placate the computer makers who might be worried that the Xbox is also a stealth home PC that will compete their products. If that's the case, then sure, deny it now.

Shame Gordon Sumner lost over 'sting' *grin*, go ahead promote all that saving the rain forests, then be a factotum for compaq shooting commercials from the back of a $100k+ jaguar doing 9mpg...

The sting thing was different though ... the kid that had the domain WAS using it for something if I remember correctly. So he should get to keep it (I don't believe sting is a registered trademark, is it?). What I can't stand is assholes who buy a domain, and put up a big "for sale" sign on it. And that's all. Fuck you!

<b>Mark_Asher</b> (#32):
<quote>. . . I don't see why they won't build one in. Make it so it accepts standard peripherals. That makes it cheap and easy for Xbox owners to add them. Heck, they could unplug the mouse and keyboard from their computers and use them with the Xbox. </quote>

I imagine that the console manufacturers (and third parties) make a tidy profit on selling extra controllers and other peripherals. All they have to do is patent some important piece relating to the function of their controller, and they (or their licensees) become the only source for the peripherals, and they can charge whatever they please. Nobody ever accused MS of passing on an opportunity to use a position like that to maximize profits.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>

What do you guys think about the stance 3D Realms took with those guys that made the Duke Nukem level pack for Quake 3? Personally I don't see how a few Quake 3 levels with the Duke theme could hurt anything.

<b>#37</b> "EvilivE" wrote...
<quote>What do you guys think about the stance 3D Realms took with those guys that made the Duke Nukem level pack for Quake 3? Personally I don't see how a few Quake 3 levels with the Duke theme could hurt anything.</quote>

I think they did the only thing they could do.

No one gives away textures and levels. You might get a GPL'd engine someday, but no one ever gives up content.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>

hehe its just like 3drealms trying to register some famous lines from a movie as being there own.
And getting the trademarks.. Attempting to.

Very damn Similar to that.

As to the Duke q3 thing.. That's the fault of the so-called Map makers.. who basically just use a utility to convert the original graphics to the q3 map system. shows no skill no originality what so ever. And for that they deserve to have their "MOD"
Wolf'ed out of existance.

<b>#40</b> "EvilAsh" wrote...
<quote>hehe its just like 3drealms trying to register some famous lines from a movie as being there own.</quote>
When used in a game.
<quote>
And getting the trademarks.. Attempting to.

Very damn Similar to that.
</quote>
On the surface, it does appear that way.
<quote>
As to the Duke q3 thing.. That's the fault of the so-called Map makers.. who basically just use a utility to convert the original graphics to the q3 map system. shows no skill no originality what so ever. And for that they deserve to have their "MOD"
Wolf'ed out of existance.</quote>
</quote>
And I'm sure they will. Although I thought the correct term was to be 'foxed'.

According to the dates, it's lasted one day. Heh.
===
Oh and if Andy DOES indeed show up, here's a little gift for him -- especially considering his stoic (yet utterly irraional, IMO) backing of the idea that gaming does cause violence, courtesy of our very own Surgeon General.

<quote>Indeed, the report says, media violence apparently plays no role at all in late-onset violence (children whose record of violent crime begins in adolescence) and only a minor role in early-onset cases (children whose start engaging in violent behaviour toward others before the age of 11). Even in those cases, exposure to media violence is only rated the tenth most significant risk factor by the report, behind poor parenting and parents who are themselves violent, and far behind poverty, substance use and natural aggressive tendencies in determining which children eventually commit crimes. If violent media has any impact, in other words, it has its effect before a child reaches puberty.</quote>

thugging textures I can see being copyright infringement.
but if they created new textures
and loaded up their favorite q3 editor and recreated the duke3d maps by hand
would 3drealms have a case against them or not?
I have trouble seeing how you could copyright the layout of a city map, or a space station
a particular implementation of that layout possibly
but anything that looks similar?

Yet another battle in the inglorious war between valiant internet guerillas and the Evil Empire - the unholy legion of companies who want to make a heap of money for doing nothing and deceiving gullible investors with a veritable smoke screen of hype. Etoys is just another in a long string of lame business ventures that everyone knew intuitively would fail. Does anyone remember when Yahoo sued the hell out of a marijuana fansite called Yahooka? Same principle in action. It's the encroachment of the internet's native free speech haven by uptight corporate pig gods.

<b>Creation</b> (#30):
<quote>Digging a bit deep? It's perfectly clear what EToys does/did even if the name does translate to "Electronic Toys." You could say the same thing about EBay, as well. "Electronic Bay?" Like the San Francisco Bay?</quote>
Not quite. "Electronic Bay" doesn't automagically _mean_ something to the old folks crowd, thus encouraging attention/curiousity upon first exposure. "Electronic Toys", however, does. I do think that if an established auctioneer had existed before Ebay entrenched themselves, Ebay would have failed, all other things being equal.

I still don't know what "bay" means, in the context of an auction. Is it the little pulpit the barker stands in? Dunno. "Ebay" has grabbed total mindshare for those syllables. "Etoys" was a word with various possible popular meanings already, thus was at a disadvantage. Baggage sucks. That was my point.

<b>ChrisJohnson</b> (#42):
<quote>gaming does cause violence</quote>
I think the actual claim being made is that exposure to violence of any kind leads to more violence. I don't think anyone is actually claiming that playing games leads to violence in and of itself.

I tend to believe that witnessing acts of violence will make it more probable that a developing human will be more likely to incorporate violence into their worldview. Children are IGNORANT. They learn primarily by observation. Show them violence in an attractive package, they will link "violence" with "attractiveness" in their consciousness.

I am uncertain that even strong parental guidance could overcome this. "Here Johnny, shoot the soldier, but this is BAD if it was real, okay! Look at him jump! Tee hee!" Since I am not clinically insane, and thus, have never chosen to reproduce, I'm uncertain. But violence is one of those things that humans respond to on a very basic level; adrenaline and all that. If I were to get smacked in the head with a large stick, and suddenly look around and think, "YEAH! More people is JUST what this world needs! ROCK!" I would do my damnedest to raise my children in an environment as free from volatile influences as possible.

Having said all that, I strongly feel that parental licensing ought to be implemented before game licensing. But, this planet is fuxx0red anyway. If it won't help to slow down, pour it on!!!<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>

Does anyone remember when Yahoo sued the hell out of a marijuana fansite called Yahooka? Same principle in action. It's the encroachment of the internet's native free speech haven by uptight corporate pig gods.

Yes, how dare they defend their copyright!? They should let people infringe upon it whenever they feel like it.

maybe yahoo was something people said after taking a monster hit off the yahooka. it's all marketing, i mean it's not like yahoo could copyright someone saying yahoo, that'd be like copyrighting a phrase from someone else's movie and using it in your game...

<quote>Does anyone remember when Yahoo sued the hell out of a marijuana fansite called Yahooka? Same principle in action. It's the encroachment of the internet's native free speech haven by uptight corporate pig gods.</quote>
Yes, how dare they defend their copyright!? They should let people infringe upon it whenever they feel like it.

The Yahoo one is a bad example because you can't accidentally end up at yahooka when typing Yahoo's addy in. You shouldn't be able to own any words that resemble you trademark. Now if their url was Yaho, that would be different.
<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>